Sinclair v. Canada (Attorney General), (2006) 291 F.T.R. 182 (FC)

• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 08, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 291 F.T.R. 182 (FC);2006 FC 528

Sinclair v. Can. (A.G.) (2006), 291 F.T.R. 182 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.024

Thomas Harvey Sinclair (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1185-04; 2006 FC 528)

Indexed As: Sinclair v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

April 27, 2006.

Summary:

Sinclair was served with a Notice of Discharge from the RCMP. A Discharge and Demotion Board found that the ground of unsuitability had been established because Sinclair repeatedly failed to perform his duties in a manner fitted to the requirements of his position. The Board directed that Sinclair be discharged from the RCMP. The Commissioner of the RCMP upheld the Board's decision. Sinclair applied for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 980.1

Discrimination - Duty to accommodate - [See Police - Topic 4110 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 985

Discrimination - Employment - Duty to accommodate - [See Police - Topic 4110 ].

Police - Topic 4110

Internal organization - Dismissal of members - Grounds - Unsuitability - Sinclair was served with a Notice of Discharge from the RCMP - A Discharge and Demotion Board found that the ground of unsuitability had been established because Sinclair repeatedly failed to perform his duties in a manner fitted to the requirements of his position - The Board directed that Sinclair be discharged from the RCMP - The Commissioner of the RCMP upheld the decision - Sinclair applied for judicial review, arguing that: (1) the Commissioner erred in his findings with regard to the role of Sinclair's depression in his failure to meet the requirements of his position; and (2) the Commissioner erred by failing to consider Sinclair's depression as a disability and the duty to accommodate under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Commissioner concluded that Sinclair's mental health problems could not account for his shortcomings in performing his duties - That conclusion was not patently unreasonable - Therefore, it could not be said that Sinclair was discharged because of a disability contrary to s. 7 of the CHRA and the Commissioner was not bound to consider the accommodation issue - See paragraphs 28 to 39.

Police - Topic 6742

Police Commission and R.C.M.P. Commissioner - Judicial review - Scope or standard of review - Sinclair was served with a Notice of Discharge from the RCMP - A Discharge and Demotion Board found that the ground of unsuitability had been established because Sinclair repeatedly failed to perform his duties in a manner fitted to the requirements of his position - The Board directed that Sinclair be discharged from the RCMP - The Commissioner of the RCMP upheld the decision - Sinclair applied for judicial review, arguing that: (1) the Commissioner erred in his findings with regard to the role of Sinclair's depression in his failure to meet the requirements of his position; and (2) the Commissioner erred by failing to consider Sinclair's depression as a disability and the duty to accommodate under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) - The Federal Court held that the Commissioner's decision was reviewable on a standard of patent unreasonableness - However, whether the Commissioner ought to have considered the provisions of the CRHA, and in particular the duty to accommodate prescribed by s. 15 of that Act, was a question of law that had to be assessed against a standard of correctness - See paragraph 27.

Cases Noticed:

Western Marine Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 351 (1983), 12 L.A.C.(3d) 260 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Marine Harbours v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 351 - see Western Marine Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 351.

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 321 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Millard v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 253 N.R. 187 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Stenhouse v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 248 F.T.R. 248; 2004 FC 375, refd to. [para. 19].

Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 36].

Regional Cablesystems Inc. v. Wygant (2003), 228 F.T.R. 286; 2003 FCT 236, refd to. [para. 37].

Nlha'7kapmx Child and Family Services v. C.A.L. (2002), 219 F.T.R. 182; 2002 FCT 348, refd to. [para. 37].

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers et al. (2001), 267 N.R. 82; 2001 FCA 4, refd to. [para. 37].

Poirier v. Canada (Minister of Veterans Affairs), [1989] 3 F.C. 233; 96 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Angela Byrne, for the applicant;

Balji Rattan, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Code Hunter LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on February 8, 2006, at Calgary, Alberta, before de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 27, 2006.